Send me email updates about messages I've received on the site and the latest news from The CafeMom Team.
By signing up, you certify that you are female and accept the Terms of Service and have read the
Privacy Policy.

Posted by: Liam O'Conner in Crime, The Gun Control Debate November 20, 2013

In a landmark ruling, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that lifetime bans on gun ownership for individuals convicted of domestic violence are not a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

Daniel Chovan of California was convicted of a misdemeanor domestic violence offence in 1996. He did not include his conjviction in an application to buy a gun in 2009, which triggered an FBI alert.
The FBI found Internet footage of Chovan shooting guns, and conducting armed, unauthorised, vigilante “border patrols” along the US-Mexico border. He had also threatened to track down and shoot his now ex-wife if she left him. A search of his home revealed four guns, as well as 500 rounds of ammunition. This led to criminal charges being brought against Chovan relating to the omission of his domestic violence conviction on his application.
In court, Chovan and his lawyers argued that a federal ban on firearm ownership for those convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors was a violation of his constitutional rights. The court disagreed.
Speaking for the court Judge, Harry Pregerson said:

“The government has demonstrated that domestic violence misdemeanants are likely to commit acts of domestic violence again and that, if they do so with a gun, the risk of death to the victim is significantly increased.”
The ruling is the latest step in the evolution of the courts’ treatment of domestic violence. Originally, the federally-mandated lifetime ban on gun ownership applied only to those convicted of violent felonies. The law was updated in 1996 to include those convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors, since they are the most comment violent crimes committed in victims’ homes.
Under California law, Chovan would have been banned from firearm ownership for only ten years, but the 9th Circuit’s ruling supersedes state law, meaning that Chovan will be banned from owning any firearms for the rest of his life.

Gun ban for those convicted of domestic violence upheld

Federal law prohibits anyone convicted of battery against a spouse or domestic partner from possessing a gun, even if the victim was uninjured, a California appeals court ruled Tuesday.

The 2-1 decision by the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Fresno waded into a dispute that has divided state and federal courts: whether a 1996 federal law, which imposes a lifetime ban on firearms possession by those convicted of a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence," requires evidence that the victim was actually beaten or seriously harmed.

The case involved a Tulare County man, Scott James, who pleaded no contest in 1996 to the misdemeanor battery of his wife and was placed on probation. James applied to be a reserve police officer in 2008, and later tried to buy a gun, but he was turned down because the state classified his crime as domestic violence.

The court did not give details of James' crime. California law defines battery as the "willful and unlawful use of force or violence" against another person, but also says it can be violated by "the slightest touching."

In another case, a different state appellate court ruled in May that a misdemeanor battery conviction, by itself, did not amount to an act of "domestic violence" that barred gun ownership. A federal appeals court in San Francisco had reached the same conclusion in a 2003 ruling about a similar law in another state.

The majority in Tuesday's ruling, however, said those decisions gave too little weight to the intent of the 1996 federal law. Its author, the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., said during floor debate that he was proposing "a policy of zero tolerance when it comes to guns and domestic violence."

It was already this way in Oklahoma. If you have a felony at all or a misdemeanor in a certain area you cannnot but a gun or get a carry permit. I think it makes sense to ban those convicted of domestic abuse for sure. They have shown they are unstable and willing to victimize even those closest to them.

I don't know how I feel about that knowing that it's quite easy to get arrested for domestic violence. It's easier to get convicted now too since the state no longer leaves out up to the victim to press charges. Now the state brings charges and it's less likely to forgive because of roses and a heartfelt apology.
I've seen situations where everyone went to jail or the wrong one went. But arrests aren't convictions so there is hope for that.
They also couldn't have picked a better defendant to make case law with. The guy was obviously a little dangerous and had no business with a gun. If he had kept his mouth shut, he would have only had to wait ten years. He did lie on the application. He'll appeal.

Send me email updates about messages I've received on the site and the latest news from The CafeMom Team.
By signing up, you certify that you are female and accept the Terms of Service and have read the
Privacy Policy.